i want to clarify this flier went out, apparently sending misinformation about our involvement in trying to convert this particular hotel. as stated, in two rooms for homeless people, welfare recipients, and felons. we have had no involvement in any effort to house homeless people at the hotel. we have not had any involvement with the beach motel since it was resolved in 1998. mike understanding is that the mayor's office has no designs on this hotel. i want to make that very clear. we did not get involved with this process until i got a call saying the board wants to resolve this matter. it has been pending on your calendar for many years. there will be some public testimony that somehow we will force this to be a homeless

shelter. that is not the case. that could continue as apartments, the restriction on renting houses -- has expired. there is no move to try to turn this into any homeless shelter or housing for homeless people. the problem with the argument is that the face of the certificate of use issued in 2002 the allies eight. it specifically states that the designation does not supersede the requirements of any other city code. those designations -- is only issued because the entire property has been withdrawn from residential use.

that is the reason the certificate of use was issued. the court of appeals says the hotel owner does not have to comply with the provisions of the hotel ordinance. both the city and mr. patel agreed to be bound. it specifically said it has nothing to do with the zone or the planning code and the court of appeals said their decision has nothing to do with the zoning and planning code. also, the courts of appeal have routinely stated that the invocation does not give the property owner are right to do it yourself zoning. ok? they cannot invoke it and not complied with zoning provisions that uniformly applied to this property and other properties in the neighborhood and get some

other the subsequent use of the property other than residential housing, residential rental housing, excuse me. they do not get a right to surpass the planning code provisions that generally applied to the neighborhood. every single court of appeal decision has confirmed that. it is and the statute itself. all this appeal is about is whether the zoning administrator determination must correct. and it clearly was because under standard nonconforming law, it is up to the property owner to show evidence of the nonconforming use. all the evidence that is evidence that was cut and was presented at the initial hearing. as you can tell from reading the transcripts, it was a full and fair hearing. no additional evidence was

provided that convinced this body to overturn the zoning administrator's decision. therefore, it is upheld. he is also incorrect but somehow the cou -- designing administrators determination was final at the time this board failed to uphold that. it was final. the request for rehearing does not suspend the determination. it was a final decision. even if it were to be determined to apply only -- to apply it to limit the planning codes provisions, which it does not, even if it was, it was not prior to this zoning administrator's determination. therefore, it is not binding on this board. >> let's deal with the first thing you started with. the flier. what was the original reason that they got involved with this

to begin with? >> we have been interested in maintaining the supply of residential hotels in san francisco. if you know the history of residential hotels, you know there was a tremendous amount of demolition and removal of residential hotels back in the tenderloin back in the late 1970's and early 1980's. that is why the ordinance was enacted. the tenderloin housing clinic was one of the chief sponsors, one of the major organizations pushing for the preservation of residential hotels. that has been our historic mission. we have uniformly monitored residential hotels to make sure they are in compliance. since the beach hotel had a 20 residential certificate of use, and zero tourist use, we noted

that it was the owner agreed and signed a stipulation. that was appealed, lost at the court of appeals >> you have pretty much answer that question. the original intent was to maintain whatever housing was there even though it has been testified to that there was no housing. >> the report said that there was residential tenants in the hotel. >> you would dispute that it ever operated as a hotel?

the reason to do that was to preserve what it considered to be housing was the same next -- the reason to do that was to deserve as considered housing or was this a mischaracterized use? >> we have never seen it characterized at the time that the zoning change. we requested the lod to see whether this was a lawful nonconforming use. >> you know where i am going. i am much more concerned about

the legal finery are around this. was it really a hotel that someone had not done proper paper work on and so therefore it is classified as residential when in fact as a matter of operation, it was actually a motel? >> because the bird and -- >> yes, i know. -- because of the burden. >> yes, i know. >> there was a residential use as well as a tourist to ususe. i can assure you that on the screen. >> they were able to operate as residential and they were required to. >> yes, this would be under the hotel convergence use.

>> so, to protect their own interest, they were possibly lied about the use in order to apply? >> or, they could be operating as a residential mixed use hotel, of which there are many in san francisco. >> they are under violation because they're not allowed to operate as a hotel? >> correct. >> i will show you some random ones. the report to the city and and the data that is. the 15th, 1985, this has two residential units.

>> they are making a declaration against their own interest. >> apparently. >> you can read by the week for a number of weeks.

>> any other questions? thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good afternoon. i am coming to this with fresh chives. i was not the zoning administrator when the letter of determination was issued but i did review the materials and tried to compile a history of facts. we can go through what may have happened and the background. it appears that the permit in 1957 to build a building that would contain 12 -- 1012 in units. they did convert that to a motel use and as appellant showed,

this shows minutes from a planning commission meeting which was in 1957, 1958. as reported, a letter from the property owners that they wanted to convert this to a motel use. the motel use was converted. the records from 1960-61 show this as a motel. there is one dwelling unit associated with it. that to continue for many years. >> was this ever occupied as the residential use? >> no, it does not appear that it would have been occupied as residential. maybe they had received a permit, been granted a permit, and then decided to change their mind.

we have a survey that shows this as a motel. how long are they doing this for? one night? seven nights? is probably is a feel fluctuation and variation in the construction and operation. 1979 is a critical year, that is the hotel conversion and demolition ordinance which said that if you are a hotel that has residential use and was looking at occupancy of 32 days or more, that would be covered under this conversion ordinance. it seems that they did have at that time, i did review the same records that was presented and the department of housing

inspection services. there is variation. it could be 17 units or a variation in the 80's. in 1997, the level of the termination says that this is a residential hotel, which would be correct. based upon our records, looking at the 1979 hco, this was continue at the call of the chair in 1998. this almost came back and this request was on the agenda in 2002, 2006. now, it is being heard by the board. the residential units, whether or not they were there, they got out of the residential rental game. 2002, there was a permit to convert. we don't have any records that

indicate that this was done. if you look at the note on there, it says that it is really addressing just chapter 41 of the administrative code, not dealing with the planning code compliance issues. what we have here is no longer a residential hotel. what use is it? this is under a permit that was not available at the time. that does seem to be new information. a little bit about the zoning history, 1957, up to 1960, this would have been located in the commercial district. we had about six or seven zoning districts in the city that was commercial. in 1960, it resound to r-four. this allowed any nonconforming motel to maintain, carry on as they were panther 1978, there

was rezoning to the residential district prohibiting any hotels of more tha and it can't do away with the ability for that motel to continue operating. there would be the expiration for that and that would be in 2007. the nearest commercial district is a block away and it also prohibits tourist hotels. that is the presentation, i'm available for any questions should there be any. >> and mr. zoning administrator, a couple of questions. let's go back to the question that i asked the appellant, this certificate of use process, can you explain in a little further detail for us what is involved in that and specifically what kind of review then correlates to the issuance

of that? >> yes, i have limited knowledge of that. that is within the department of building inspection services. that is different. i did speak with the head of housing services and we did discuss the process a little bit. typically, we are notified of these and we respond to them but i don't have any record of us responding to this. i'm understand there was active litigation around this at that time and i was not personally involved in this and i cannot speak to any of the litigation issues that might have been going on with this back in 2002 but it is my understanding that we do typically review the permit. >> ok. perhaps this is not necessarily germain to the decision making tonight but should it go into a

rehearing process, there will be questions relating to some of the previous department actions related to termination clauses, related to the use, things like that that popped out when i was revealing some of the information. would you share any thoughts on this particular case? >> well, the big question is, now that it is no longer a residential, they can go to any member of permitted uses within the zoning district, be this the apartments, the density here loallows one unit per 1000 squae

feet. there are requirements for parking and open space. open space come other things like that need to be satisfied. so, there are other options within the current zoning. the question that should this be before the board, i think that would be one of the questions that the board would be able to answer. what is the produce? should this be reverted back to the previous nonconforming tourist hotel use? that is something that could be within the purview of this board to decide, given that that is what it had been in the past. because of the unique nature of the ellis act, does that mean that they can go back to that? that is a question that the board has the jurisdiction to answer. >> it does not really matter of

brother or not we had grant and the rehearing and some determination was made that they could become apartments or become a residential motel, which they claim they are now. if they wanted to do 10 apartments, would they have to go through -- >> not at all. right now, the question is exactly what is the current use. if we were just to classify the current use as group housing, and they wanted them to have that be dwelling units, they could do that without any kind of dwelling unit -- that would be required now. >> does the department others on the administrator have the direction for this board as to how we should go in terms of granting or not granting a rehearing? >> the bourse typical rules are that there are new information manifesting, this was heard by

the board in 1998. there is argument that there is new information which i believe is pretty slim given what has happened past 14 years. >> of the new information, it does that even have -- given what you have stated on the face of it alone, it has no bearing. does it have any impact on planning and zoning, which is what the -- is all about, right? to what extent is that worth looking at? >> we're looking at the residential hotel aspect of it. that is not the case because of the 2002 decision. in some ways, you could argue that this is moved because the primary question is is this a residential hotel? that would be answered by the 2002 action.

that kind of overrides the aspect of the lod. the core question was, whether or not it was a residential hotel. >> ok. you did not submit any written materials for this rehearing? >> no, i apologize for that. i was looking at it on the basis of the facts. is seem like there was no information that would justify -- >> no greater, right? >> well, not on this one. i believe that it would be well handled by this board. >> if you were the zoning administrator in 1997, would you have made the same determination that was made given what you have seen in the files? >> i think perhaps i would have

come to the same conclusion but i would have arrived at it differently. i think that there are facts to establish that there had originally been a tourist hotel but i do believe that there is also substantial evidence that shows that it did change into a residential hotel over time. >> prior to 1960. >> not prior to 1960 but prior to at least 1979. there is also the question of a nonconforming use and they are moving away from that to another use which is widely permitted. group housing is principally permitted in the district at this density. they move more closely towards a permitted use category. this changes from year to year. there are numbers that show maybe 17 one-year, three the next, 17 the next. there is a variation and i am

not able to be definitive on anything. we have an appeal, we have public notice, we have hearings at the board of appeals. maybe the board of appeals is better equipped to deal with something like this. >> thank you. >> it looks like -- would like to be able to speak again. we will have public testimony and then we will grant with everyone's intelligence, both sides. we will deviate from our normal course and we will grant each side two or three minutes. we are going to restrict, and i will explain why, we will restrict public testimony to one minute because what we're dealing with is a very narrow issue. we're not dealing whether this should be a motel or that it is

going to be sro. we are dealing with whether this board should grant a rehearing of those issues. we are not deciding those issues this evening. you are free to talk that anything, you could come up here and talk about the giants, but i would prefer that you stick to what is at issue and that is a request for a rehearing and that narrow issue. you don't need to repeat what someone else said. we're going to lead off with everyone else's permission the supervisor to who has patiently waited to address this board. >> i think we have a backlog across the city so i appreciate it. this is not a question whether

it should be tourism or residential use, this is about whether we should grant a rehearing. based on the conversation we have had, there is a standing for that. this has been out there since the 1990's. the board could not muster the votes to deny a rehearing. 14 years later, had there been evidence of a legitimate case for that. the minister believes that there is that information. this is an entirely new body that should hear this case and the merits of it. the zoning administrator has explained this. they would really benefit from the public process. in addition, all of our records have shown that this is a tourist hotel. i think that it wants this board to really take a look at it with fresh eyes and resolve this issue once and for all.

>> can i have a show of hands on how many people that like to speak on this item? >> if people would like to, you can line up along the far wall to be the next to speak. >> my name is daniel donnelly. this is a neighborhood that has starbucks and we have schools in the area, this is a business area. there are street cars nearby, there are other hotels and motels in the area and they are residential areas also. we have schools in the area of there is no reason to have this in the sunset district.

king street has and the buildings, the candlestick park building -- area has and the buildings. they can put this anywhere in the city, why the sunset district? >> thank you. next speaker. please step forward. >> thank you for letting me speak, commissioners. i would like to show a support for a rehearing and this might encourage your decision. >> i appreciate that suggestion.

>> please state your name. >> daniel stricter, i owned a bar in the building. it is pittsburgh's bar. >> is there any other public comment? >> i am the son and, of the gentleman that this case is about. >> as a member of his family, your time is included with the attorney. thank you.